Reflection 12—

So as we left class about twenty minutes ago, PTJ brought up the question we will be addressing next week regarding the aim and intent of international aid, and how those should be configured. All my life I have wanted to be involved with some sort of NGO or aid organization that helps people on the ground, in the field. On a human plane this is extremely rewarding for both the anthropologist and the receiver of aid.

However…in light of some strong points in today’s discussion, it seems as if the best way to facilitate general well-being is to interact with governments rather than individual civilians. If someone builds a school in an African nation or even a school district, that affects what…10,000 people max? Instead if the government is supported and solidified fiscally, economically, and in terms of security, there is a far higher probability that the nation as a whole will experience great benefit, rather than a single community. The gap between funds and efforts that it takes to reform a government is certainly extreme, but even partial reforms will have a larger umbrella effect than educational engagement in a individual community.

This is not to discourage anthropological efforts because in terms of human relationship personal efforts are far more valuable. However, there are two levels of foreign aid that need to be addressed and the first is undeniably macro engagement. Once fundamental government responsibility is established, from there NGO projects and the kind of aid we would normally consider to be “aid” becomes more sustainable and eventually can be built upon. That is why a country like Kenya with a more stable government is far more capable of sustaining development, than a country like Chad, whose government is merely a means for leaders to steal enough from the people so that they can experience a comfortable European exile. Governmental structures are what international aid should first address.